Appeal No. 1999-2126 Page 3
Application No. 08/857,938
Claims 19-21, 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Robinson ‘241 in view of
Robinson ‘203 and Wilkinson, Gebert or Burhans.
OPINION
Rather than attempt to reiterate the details of the
explanation of the rejection and the opposing viewpoints of the
examiner and the appellants, we refer to the Examiner’s Answer
and the Brief.
The rejection before us is under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The
test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to provide a
reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led
to modify a prior art reference or to combine reference
teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex parte
Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To this
Answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007